Water Governance—An Historical Perspective on Current Debates
Water Governance—An Historical Perspective on Current Debates
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.11.014
复制
发表时间：
2017-04
影响因子：
6.9
通讯作者：
P. Woodhouse;M. Muller
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
P. Woodhouse;M. Muller
自1977年联合国在马德普拉塔召开水资源会议以来，国际上就水资源治理如何能够以及应该如何应对可持续发展的挑战展开了辩论。建立了新的全球机构，以促进以1992年“都柏林原则”及其版本的“水资源综合管理”为基础的普遍治理规范。其中许多处方都受到了质疑，尤其是因为他们倡导以市场为基础的方法来解决稀缺和环境可持续性的挑战。本文考察了影响水治理不同概念的驱动因素。它显示了“稀缺”如何成为一些叙事的核心，这些叙事试图将治理的重点放在流域尺度上，限制水资源的使用，以有利于水资源生态系统的保护和恢复，并通过市场机制优先考虑经济效率。然后，报告回顾了一系列不同国家的经验，其中一些国家实施了系统性治理改革，而另一些国家在国内环境的推动下，发展轨迹更为渐进。这些实践经验，加上对多中心方法以及网络如何交叉和联系一系列地理和行政尺度的日益了解，已经产生了规范的水资源综合管理的替代方法，即以流域为重点的水治理方法。尽管对“地球环境边界”和跨界安全的关切仍在继续，但事实证明，这些是采用正式的全球水治理系统的薄弱动机。相反，新的叙述强调地方多样化的方法，认为水在“问题分水岭”而不是“分水岭”内治理。水治理仍然是地方和“全球”标准以及发展和环境目标之间争论的焦点。但是，面对复杂性和多样性的挑战以及对网络治理的新兴理解，新兴的以实践者为导向的指导侧重于一般原则，明确避免规范方法。
Since the UN water conference at Mar del Plata in 1977, there have been international debates about how water governance could and should respond to the challenges of sustainable development. New global institutions were established to promote universal norms of governance based on the 1992 “Dublin Principles” and its version of “Integrated Water Resource Management” (IWRM). Many of these prescriptions were contested, not least because of their advocacy of market-based approaches to address what were posed as challenges of scarcity and environmental sustainability.The paper examines the drivers that have informed different conceptualisations of water governance. It shows how “scarcity” has become central to narratives that sought to focus governance at the river basin scale, to restrict water use in favour of the protection and restoration of water resource ecosystems and to prioritize economic efficiency through market mechanisms. It then reviews the experience of a diverse set of countries, some of which have implemented systemic governance reforms and others whose trajectories have been more evolutionary, driven by domestic contexts.These practical experiences, supported by a growing understanding of polycentric approaches and how networks cross and link a range of geographic and administrative scales, have given rise to alternatives to the normative IWRM, river basin-focused approaches to water governance. Despite continuing concerns about “planetary environmental boundaries” and transboundary security, these are proving to be weak motivations for adoption of formal global systems of water governance. Instead, new narratives emphasise locally-diverse approaches that see water governed within “problem-sheds” rather than “water-sheds”.Water governance remains a scene of contestation between local and “global” criteria and developmental and environmental goals. But, in the face of challenges of complexity and diversity and the emerging understanding of network governance, emerging practitioner-oriented guidance is focusing on general principles and explicitly avoiding normative approaches.